United States v. Vinh Xuan Ngo, No. 16-3890 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right of appeal as part of the plea agreement and his challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence is within the scope of the waiver; appeal dismissed. [ June 05, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3890 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Vinh Xuan Ngo lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: June 6, 2017 Filed: June 6, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, Vinh Xuan Ngo pleaded guilty to charges of aiding and abetting bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. The district court1 sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines range to 114 months in prison, and Ngo appeals. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the sentence is unreasonable, and asks that this court consider whether the appeal waiver should be enforced in this case. Having carefully considered the record, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and should be enforced. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review). At the plea hearing, the district court carefully and thoroughly questioned Ngo to ensure that he was entering into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); this appeal falls within the scope of the broadly worded appeal waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
